Two stonewalling and foot-dragging prosecutors lose their jobs last night

[RavenSky]

Kim Davis does not need to be elected or 'appointed'. The government advertises a vacancy and people send in their résumés, people are shortlisted and interviewed, and then someone is hired.

And then if they're not doing their job properly, they have a time-limited window to improve their performance or they get fired.

It isn't that complex.

neither is an election, which is essentially exactly the same as you have described above except that the voters in that district make the hire/fire decisions, not some person/people you have failed to identify

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm not going to get involved in one of your nit-picking shit counting arguments again. I know that the office is considered important, because the civil records are revered and are part of the various rituals of state. The clerk, as keeper of these records, participates in the important civic rituals, such as weddings, which happens to be the event I witnessed which showed me that the clerk was more than 'a glorified' secretary. How, specifically, they are gotten is unknown to me. I'm contradicting your argument that the county clerk is 'a glorified secretary,' 'to anyone who isn't an American.' And I did that by finding a counter example. I found a counter example, so your statement is false. Period.

You see, I know what your game is. You make some broad, sweeping statement. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you start asking ever more specific questions. When that person finally can't answer a question, you conclude that they don't know what they are talking about, and your original sweeping, ignorant statement is true.

Sorry, I'm not playing. You made a universal statement, I found a counter example, and invalidated your statement. Argument over.

 

[Metaphor]

Kim Davis does not need to be elected or 'appointed'. The government advertises a vacancy and people send in their résumés, people are shortlisted and interviewed, and then someone is hired.

And then if they're not doing their job properly, they have a time-limited window to improve their performance or they get fired.

It isn't that complex.

neither is an election, which is essentially exactly the same as you have described above except that the voters in that district make the hire/fire decisions, not some person/people you have failed to identify

I didn't say an election was complex, I think elections for glorified secretaries are stupid. I said the solution to getting people into needed roles without electing them was not complex. It's how 99% of people get into their roles.

 

[RavenSky]

neither is an election, which is essentially exactly the same as you have described above except that the voters in that district make the hire/fire decisions, not some person/people you have failed to identify

I didn't say an election was complex, I think elections for glorified secretaries are stupid. I said the solution to getting people into needed roles without electing them was not complex. It's how 99% of people get into their roles.

And you again avoided the entire point - whether you elect someone or appointment someone or have some unidentified mystery person hire someone - the system always has potential for a Kim Davis to get in and must have some system for getting her out again.

 

[Metaphor]

II'm contradicting your argument that the county clerk is 'a glorified secretary,' 'to anyone who isn't an American.' And I did that by finding a counter example. I found a counter example, so your statement is false. Period.

No, my statement is not false. You can't contradict my assertion that a county clerk in America is a glorified secretary by citing how you perceive a town clerk in France to be an important (and therefore 'electable'?) role.

You see, I know what your game is. You make some broad, sweeping statement. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you start asking ever more specific questions. When that person finally can't answer a question, you conclude that they don't know what they are talking about, and your original sweeping, ignorant statement is true.

I was clearly referring to county clerks in America, in the specific context of Kim Davis's position, which seems to be an $80k/year job to not sign marriage licenses.

Sorry, I'm not playing. You made a universal statement, I found a counter example, and invalidated your statement. Argument over.

You did nothing of the sort.

 

[MarkW]

When you have elected prosecutors you get miscarriages of justices because the DA wants to get reelected.

And when you get appointed DAs, you get miscarriages of justice because the DA wants to please his appointer or avoid getting axed. Anyone remember the firings of federal prosecuting attorneys by the Bush administration in 2006?

That isn't really a good example, since it backfired pretty seriously on Bush--as in, his Attorney General and a host of other DoJ officials had to resign because of the political backlash.

 

[laughing dog]

And when you get appointed DAs, you get miscarriages of justice because the DA wants to please his appointer or avoid getting axed. Anyone remember the firings of federal prosecuting attorneys by the Bush administration in 2006?

That isn't really a good example, since it backfired pretty seriously on Bush--as in, his Attorney General and a host of other DoJ officials had to resign because of the political backlash.

The point was there appointed officials can be under pressure to "politicize" their work. Those prosecutors were fired for purportedly not obeying orders. Now, were they "politicizing" their work or were the prosecutors who were not fired "politicizing" their work?

 

[Sarpedon]

Have you any idea how strange all of this sounds to non-Americans? Why is a glorified secretary 'in office'?

This was your statement. Again, not going to argue with you. You made a sweeping, arrogant, belittling statement that is wrong. Period.

I suppose, technically, since it was stated in the form of a question, it has no truth value, and therefore can't be false. But we all know how people use questions to make rhetorical points. And it is quite clear that your intent is to generalize and belittle, as it always is. So, suck it. You are wrong. More than one nation considers the keeper of the public records to be an important office. You don't. You can have your opinion as you want, but don't try to pretend that you speak for everyone.

 

[Metaphor]

This was your statement. Again, not going to argue with you. You made a sweeping, arrogant, belittling statement that is wrong. Period.

You have not demonstrated that my 'statement' (question) was wrong. Full stop.

And it is quite clear that your intent is to generalize and belittle, as it always is.

My intent was to ask why the county clerk is an elected position, which is why I fucking did that. What does a county clerk do that they must face the electorate with no other removal policy (not even getting sent to jail, apparently) versus being hired on merit and subject to all the usual performance measures that ordinary public servants are subject to?

So, suck it. You are wrong. More than one nation considers the keeper of the public records to be an important office. You don't. You can have your opinion as you want, but don't try to pretend that you speak for everyone.

"Keeper of the public records", holy reverence Batman!

Is the City Clerk elected in Paris? I'm curious.

 

[Terrell]

My intent was to ask why the county clerk is an elected position, which is why I fucking did that. What does a county clerk do that they must face the electorate with no other removal policy (not even getting sent to jail, apparently) versus being hired on merit and subject to all the usual performance measures that ordinary public servants are subject to?

I'm not sure why; it also may not be uniform since states can make their own laws about this.

 

[Arctish]

My intent was to ask why the county clerk is an elected position, which is why I fucking did that. What does a county clerk do that they must face the electorate with no other removal policy (not even getting sent to jail, apparently) versus being hired on merit and subject to all the usual performance measures that ordinary public servants are subject to?

I'm not sure why; it also may not be uniform since states can make their own laws about this.

As I understand it, it arose from the way the territories self-organized before they applied for statehood. People chose their officials who were then entrusted/empowered to perform specific official function on their behalf. We could do things differently nowadays, but just because you get an incompetent or intransigent County Clerk every now and doesn't mean it's worth the effort to re-write state laws and Constitutions.

I don't care whether they're elected or selected as long as there's a way to remove the poor performers and limit the harm they do.

 

[Terrell]

I'm not sure why; it also may not be uniform since states can make their own laws about this.

As I understand it, it arose from the way the territories self-organized before they applied for statehood. People chose their officials who were then entrusted/empowered to perform specific official function on their behalf. We could do things differently nowadays, but just because you get an incompetent or intransigent County Clerk every now and doesn't mean it's worth the effort to re-write state laws and Constitutions.

I don't care whether they're elected or selected as long as there's a way to remove the poor performers and limit the harm they do.

I agree. Either way no system will be perfect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But a DA isn't supposed to prosecute cases that he doesn't have a decent chance of winning. They're supposed to prosecute, not persecute.

How is prosecuting someone who you believe is guilty persecution just because the chances of winning are not "decent"?

If you can't get a conviction then you're burdening them with a trial for no reason.

When you have elected prosecutors you get miscarriages of justices because the DA wants to get reelected.

And when you get appointed DAs, you get miscarriages of justice because the DA wants to please his appointer or avoid getting axed. Anyone remember the firings of federal prosecuting attorneys by the Bush administration in 2006?

Both ways have their problems but I think there's far more problem with the elected ones. You can also build protections into the system against that sort of thing, it's impossible to protect against outraged voters.

(Another case comes to mind that's going through the courts here. There's major outrage because she killed 6 teens--and because of a tiny trace of marijuana in her blood she got nearly a life sentence for DUI fatalities. The thing is she wasn't high--this was actually a case of falling asleep at wheel which would have carried a much lighter sentence.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally, I'm still partial to "keep these police shooting cases out of the hands of local DAs entirely". There will probably be further issues with sending them to state-level DAs rather than local ones, but letting the locals that work with these cops run these cases is obviously not working in far too many cases, including the McDonald and Rice shootings.

But in the meantime, you work with what you have, and what the people had in these cases was the ability to vote out the corrupt in favor of newer people, so that's what they did.

So the next one will prosecute the cop who quite correctly shoots a black. And after that there law enforcement will suffer.

 

[laughing dog]

How is prosecuting someone who you believe is guilty persecution just because the chances of winning are not "decent"?

If you can't get a conviction then you're burdening them with a trial for no reason.

You are assuming that a conviction is not possible which is not the same as "changes of winning are not decent". Moreover, how is making a person who you believe is guilty go to trial burdening them?

Both ways have their problems but I think there's far more problem with the elected ones. You can also build protections into the system against that sort of thing, it's impossible to protect against outraged voters.

It is not possible to build in perfect protections.

These 2 DAs screwed up big time. If they could not convince the voters to re-elect them, good riddance.

 

[Arctish]

Personally, I'm still partial to "keep these police shooting cases out of the hands of local DAs entirely". There will probably be further issues with sending them to state-level DAs rather than local ones, but letting the locals that work with these cops run these cases is obviously not working in far too many cases, including the McDonald and Rice shootings.

But in the meantime, you work with what you have, and what the people had in these cases was the ability to vote out the corrupt in favor of newer people, so that's what they did.

So the next one will prosecute the cop who quite correctly shoots a black. And after that there law enforcement will suffer.

I suppose that could happen if the next one is some kind of lawless maverick. But if the next one is simply competent, dutiful, and acts in accordance with their oath of office, he or she will prosecute cops who shoot people unnecessarily, unlawfully, and/or wrongly. The victim's skin tone will have no bearing whatsoever.

 

[Arctish]

If you can't get a conviction then you're burdening them with a trial for no reason.

You are assuming that a conviction is not possible which is not the same as "changes of winning are not decent". Moreover, how is making a person who you believe is guilty go to trial burdening them?

And why is the DA concerned with "burdening" at all?

It's not the DA's job to decide what constitutes "burdening" people. That's for the lawmakers to consider and the judges to decide. The DA's job is to prosecute a suspected criminal when he or she has sufficient evidence to present to the court that:
1) a crime took place and
2) the suspect did it.

In the case of Officer Van Dyke, the evidence that a crime took place and he's the one who committed it isn't just sufficient, it's overwhelming. The Prosecutor utterly failed to do her job. I for one am glad her thumb is no longer tipping the scales of justice in favor of cops who murder suspects.

 

[Derec]

And why is the DA concerned with "burdening" at all?

Because the accused is still a citizen. How would you feel if a DA decided to charge you against his better judgment merely because the mob is demanding it and the DA risks losing reelection if he declines to prosecute you?

The DA's job is to prosecute a suspected criminal when he or she has sufficient evidence to present to the court that:
1) a crime took place and
2) the suspect did it.

And that determination should not be affected by political considerations.

In the case of Officer Van Dyke, the evidence that a crime took place and he's the one who committed it isn't just sufficient, it's overwhelming. The Prosecutor utterly failed to do her job. I for one am glad her thumb is no longer tipping the scales of justice in favor of cops who murder suspects.

But she did charge him. In fact, she overcharged him as there is no evidence what he did constitutes "1st degree murder" but is probably manslaughter. After all, this #BLM hero was menacing people with a knife and even attacked the responding cop car. The initial shots were perfectly justified, where Van Dyke went wrong is that he continued shooting after the threat was neutralized.
And why is the DA taken to task so much for taking too long to charge a police officer when there are many many more non-police shootings in Chicago than police shootings? There are more than 400 murders in Chicago every year. Shouldn't that be a priority and not the death of some crazy knife wielding maniac with an extensive juvie record?
And as far as Tamir Rice, I see no reason the DA did not follow his best professional judgment. In the older thread on the case, recently revived, it says that two independent experts were of the opinion that the shooting, as tragic as it was, did not constitute a crime by the officers. Should the DA have charged them anyway just to appease the mob?

 

[laughing dog]

Because the accused is still a citizen. How would you feel if a DA decided to charge you against his better judgment merely because the mob is demanding it and the DA risks losing reelection if he declines to prosecute you?

The DA's job is to prosecute a suspected criminal when he or she has sufficient evidence to present to the court that:
1) a crime took place and
2) the suspect did it.

And that determination should not be affected by political considerations.

In the case of Officer Van Dyke, the evidence that a crime took place and he's the one who committed it isn't just sufficient, it's overwhelming. The Prosecutor utterly failed to do her job. I for one am glad her thumb is no longer tipping the scales of justice in favor of cops who murder suspects.

But she did charge him. In fact, she overcharged him as there is no evidence what he did constitutes "1st degree murder" but is probably manslaughter. After all, this #BLM hero was menacing people with a knife and even attacked the responding cop car. The initial shots were perfectly justified, where Van Dyke went wrong is that he continued shooting after the threat was neutralized.
And why is the DA taken to task so much for taking too long to charge a police officer when there are many many more non-police shootings in Chicago than police shootings? There are more than 400 murders in Chicago every year. Shouldn't that be a priority and not the death of some crazy knife wielding maniac with an extensive juvie record?
And as far as Tamir Rice, I see no reason the DA did not follow his best professional judgment. In the older thread on the case, recently revived, it says that two independent experts were of the opinion that the shooting, as tragic as it was, did not constitute a crime by the officers. Should the DA have charged them anyway just to appease the mob?

It took over a year to bring charges. And if you think she is overcharging this thug for political reasons, then if you are consistent think you must agree that clearly the voters did the right thing in getting rid of her.

 

[ksen]

and it's not too far out there to suggest if a judge didn't force the release of that video she wouldn't have charged him at all.